Disciplinary Authority "Coerced" By Chief Vigilance Officer: Rajasthan High Court While Reversing SBI Branch Manager's Removal From Service

While quashing an order of the SBI's disciplinary authority removing a branch manager for alleged misconduct, the Rajasthan High Court observed that the authority altered its punishment from "lowering of scale" to "removal of service" on the advice and "coercion" by the concerned Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO). 

The court further observed that the disciplinary authority had "kneeled down" before the CVO going against the decisions of the Supreme Court on the issue, adding that no copy of CVO's communication/advice to the authority was given to the petitioner branch manager amounting to violation of principles of natural justice.

Disciplinary authority altered order due to coercion by CVO

A single judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in its order said, "In the present case, the Disciplinary Authority was left with no option but to alter and impose the punishment, as advised and coerced by the CVO. In the facts and circumstances, the punishment of 'Removal from Service' was imposed on the advice of the CVO. The CVO has specifically recommended for imposing of penalty of 'Removal from Service' in the communication made between him and the Disciplinary Authority, though the Disciplinary Authority, after taking into consideration the inquiry report, earlier took a decision to impose the penalty of 'reduction to a lower scale' upon the petitioner, as according to Disciplinary Authority it commensurated with the misconduct".

"Thus, the action of the Disciplinary Authority in kneeling down before the dictates of the CVO is against the authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, the same is required to be set aside in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India," the high court added. 

No opportunity of hearing provided to petitioner

On the conversion of punishment from 'reduction to a lower scale' to 'removal from service' without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the court said that the same is admittedly an "aggravated form of punishment". 

It observed that the Disciplinary Authority, after taking into consideration, the inquiry report had earlier passed an order of 'reduction to a lower scale' and was "consistent in its stand until" communication between the Disciplinary Authority and the CVO took place, after which the Disciplinary Authority altered its penalty to 'removal from service'.

The high court further noted that "no new material" was placed before the Disciplinary Authority to impose the penalty of removal from service except the communication between it and the CVO. 

"Thus, it would be safe to observe here that if the Disciplinary Authority forms an opinion to substitute a lesser penalty with a higher one, on the basis of advice of the CVO, then the principles of natural justice mandate that such a penalty should be imposed upon the petitioner only after supplying the copy of the advice of the CVO and affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is an admitted fact that the communication/advice of the CVO was never communicated to the petitioner, and such act of the respondents amounts to violation of principles of natural justice because the impugned order of removal of the petitioner is based on the advice of CVO only. Accordingly, on this aspect as well, the impugned order of removal from service imposed on the petitioner cannot be sustained," the court underscored. 

Background

The court made the observations while hearing the branch manager's plea challenging the Disciplinary Authority's punishment order by which he was removed from service and the appellate order that rejected his appeal against the order.

The Petitioner was a Branch Manager with the SBI when a charge sheet was served upon him alleging serious acts of misconduct in discharge of his official duties. The Inquiry Officer found major charges to be proved and the matter was placed before the Disciplinary Authority who proposed the punishment of lowering the scale of the Petitioner. However, when the matter was placed before the CVO, the punishment was proposed to be converted to removal from service considering the gravity of charges.

It was the Petitioner's case that when he requested the Disciplinary Authority to provide him the reasons behind such conversion of his punishment or any other communication made between the authority and the CVO, no heed was paid to the request and no material documents were supplied to him.

His counsel further argued that when the matter was taken up by the Disciplinary Authority after receiving proposal from the CVO, no new material or different reasoning was put on record for imposing a heavier penalty. 

Findings

The High Court in its order referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Satyendra Chandra Jain v. Punjab National Bank which had held that the functioning of the vigilance commissioner in matters of bank's disciplinary inquiries was purely advisory and not that of an appellate nature with respect to the decision of the inquiry officer or the disciplinary authority; adding that it was not obligatory for the Bank to follow its advice.

The high court said that it is "cautious" of the settled propostion of law that scope of interference in punishment order passed by the Disciplinary and Appellate Authority is "very limited".

It said that the  court can interfere with the punishment order if there is a violation of principles of natural justice or the authority was not competent to hold the inquiry. It went on to list instances of court's interference including whether, "the inquiry is held by a competent authority; the inquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf; there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;  the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence".

The high court however clarified that it has not touched the merits of the inquiry report and findings made by the Disciplinary Authority on it.

"This Court has made limited interference in the punishment order dated 05.12.2017, which has been passed without making available the new material to the petitioner and the same has been passed simply on the basis of opinion and suggestion of CVO vide letter dated 22.09.2017," the high court said. 

The high court thereafter quashed the order of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate order and directed SBI to convert the punishment of the Petitioner from “removal of service” to the originally decided punishment of “lowering the scale” within three months. 

Case Title: Vaibhav Singh v State Bank of India & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 281

Click Here To Read/Download Order